Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion
New IMDb templates Recently, MstrControl created Template:IMDb-company and Template:IMDb-name, both of which I see as mostly useless. The first one, which is a template to link production companies to IMDb, is only used 3 times, one of which is Memory Alpha:Message templates, explaining it. We don't need a template for only two real pages. I'm sure that we can manually use external links for those instead of a template. The second one is a bit trickier. It "is used to create an inline link to an IMDb page for a movie or a TV show." There are more links for this one, but most of these links should not be external IMDb links, but Wikipedia links. If there isn't a Wikipedia page available, then either it should not have a link, or it should be a manual external link (again, because a template for such a small number would be asinine). I don't see the point in either of these two templates. Delete both. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 23:15, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC) *Is it MA's policy to only include links to Wiki pages? If not, why should we not link to an IMDb page if there's not a Wikipedia page. I agree that the Wiki links are preferrable, but I think you'll find that there are a lot of movies and TV shows that are on IMDb but not on Wikipedia (especially older ones). Why not, then, have a template for those links? It saves a bit of typing, and also, ultimately, disk storage. I vote to keep Template:IMDb-name. I agree, though, that Template:IMDb-company is unnecessary, and can be deleted. Renegade54 00:47, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) *The IMDb-link template serves our purposes just fine. Delete both. --From Andoria with Love 00:56, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' company --Alan del Beccio 07:19, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) *My question still wasn't answered, though... do we NOT want inline links to IMDb when there's no equivalent Wiki page? If not, why not? Renegade54 01:11, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) :*I don't think there's any policy that states there should not be any inline links to non-wiki pages, which means the IMDb-name template might come in handy. The main problem is all the arrows all over the place indicating a link to be external. Those are a bit annoying, at least to me. --From Andoria with Love 02:02, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) *If IMDb-company is used too rarely, we can delete it. Originally I thought about nominating IMDb-name for immediate deletion because it duplicated IMDb-link, but then I noticed that IMDb-link has this "at the Internet Movie Database"-tail, so it can't be used within the text. That's why I changed it to a supplement for the in-text WP links. Ok, the arrows are a bit odd, but that's only relevant if there is a greater number of them, what is rarely the case. So keep it. --Memory 18:27, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) *I think inline links to external sources should be used only sparingly, if possible avoided. How often do we really want to link to an article at the IMDb if it is about an person/film etc. that we do not want to have an own article about? Delete. -- Cid Highwind 20:06, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC) **Let's explain it this way: if you look at James Cromwell you can see it works well because you don't have to scroll down and click through IMDb to "L.A. Confidential" if you want to know something about this movie. And I doubt that L.A. Confidential is referenced in Trek, so we don't need an article. Btw: if we delete this, the inline links via blabla must be removed for the same reasons... --Memory 20:55, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC) The Wikipedia links are different, in that they link to another Wiki. However, even those should be used at a minimum. The excessive IMDb links in an article are just annoying, at least in my opinion. By the way, the IMDb links on Cromwell (and some other pages, but not all) have been replaced with the (likely) preferred Wikipedia links, where applicable. :) --From Andoria with Love 05:22, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) :And this is supposed to be a substitution for all the cases that no WP article exists ;-) --Memory 19:41, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::There already is an interwiki link to titles at IMDb. If you put in Imdb:L.A. Confidential, it will bring you to a search page which contains a link at the top, here. I have trouble trying to get it to go straight to the page, because the interwiki link automatically replaces the spacing with an underscore ( _ ), which the IMDb search engine doesn't seem to understand. Anyway, I vote delete both.--Tim Thomason 08:33, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) Superfluous Babel categories :...are: en-N, en-4, en-3, en-2, en-1, en-0, de-N, de-4, de-3, de-2, de-1, de-0, es-N, es-4, es-3, es-2, es-1, fr-N, fr-3, fr-2, fr-1, it-2, it-1, nl-1 --Memory 23:18, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) I was going to create the remaining Babel templates and categories, but then I thought to myself... How many of these categories will actually have people in them? Like some other things, I don't think Memory Alpha needs categories for each level of a language, simply because we don't have that many people and with a language like, say, Italian, I don't think there's a need for five categories. I'm posting this here rather than Ten Forward because I don't want to turn this into another "Was that a formal vote?" situation like the Duty Roster. So, I'm nominating all categories on Memory Alpha:Babel, outside the "User it", "User sv", etc, for deletion. The only exception should be English, which should be standard but not necessarily native. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 22:52, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC) :I completely agree (delete) - let's have one category per language, listing all editors who actually speak that language at any level, but not 5 categories each. The english categories are not suggested for deletion here, but even they might be trimmed down IMO. -- Cid Highwind 22:56, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::I have no problem trimming the Babel model -- the form i created it in was designed to reproduce the more extensive MA/de and Wikipedia versions, but i agree that for MA's size and activity, it might not be necessary to sort them in the current form. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk :::Wow. Um... yeah, delete. --From Andoria with Love 01:02, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::::Could you post which links you specifically want deleted? --Alan del Beccio 20:05, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) :The Vedek mentioned all categories outside "User xx", obviously referring to all subcategories from "xx-0" to "xx-N" with "xx" being any one of the existing language shortcuts. I still agree with that. A user either speaks a language (=is in the main category for that language) or he doesn't (=is not in the main category). For further details and to not break the existing templates on user pages, we should keep all templates, at least for the moment. -- Cid Highwind 20:11, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::I really don't want to list them all, but basically anything listed on Memory Alpha:Babel under categories outside "en", "es", etc... so Category:User en-N, Category:User en-4, etc, which is what Cid said. I take back what I originally said about keeping English separated, but I do like having the templates at the different levels. It's just the categories that seem redundant, considering anyone under the five categories for a given language is already in that languages main category. I've adjusted the English templates to remove the extra categories and I think it looks fine. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 21:15, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' the categories, keep the templates --Memory 23:18, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::I vote to delete the extra categories. Could we perhaps, include the main language category link ("Users who speak Spanish" or whatever) with the extra templates?--Tim Thomason 08:33, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) Courtney Taylor ;Courtney Taylor : Actress whose only credit was a voice-over in a non-canon Star Trek video game. Having articles for those who worked in canon productions is one thing, but I don't think we need to start creating those who worked in non-canon items. At the very least, this should be merged with Star Trek: Starfleet Command III. --From Andoria with Love 01:29, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Delete: I don't even think this info should even be included on the Starfleet Command III page. Memory Alpha is about everything related to canon Star Trek, not everything related to things related to canon Star Trek.--Tim Thomason 06:27, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) * unsure -- should contributors to non-canon pursuits (writers and editors and illustrators and artists of comics, novels, toys and games) be given credit here? for voiceovers and some types of comic artists i'd at least say some sort of central table could be created (to see which contributors have been in every release, which have recurred or worked for different companies). i think this master list might be a better idea, if other archivists think giving courtney and her peers their own articles. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * Keep for now. We certainly need to open a dialogue on whether or not real-life people attached to non-canon yet sanctioned Trek projects deserve their own pages. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 03:01, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) :* Well, we do have pages for authors and illustrators of Trek books, so I don't know. I think we should just delete this, otherwise we may be giving the okay to create pages for others involved in non-canon merchandise (i.e. individual video game engineers and developers). I think that would be going a bit overboard. Just giving them credit on the game's article should be enough. --From Andoria with Love 04:39, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. Too many degrees of seperation. If she had worked on an episode of movie, keep it, but this seems so obscure. Jaz 08:52, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) **A discussion as to whether to keep or delete this article and others like it is currently being held over at Ten Forward. --From Andoria with Love 11:51, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) The Dauphin (TNG episode) ;The Dauphin (TNG episode) : Redirect; was created to catch link from Wikipedia article. I instead changed the Wikipedia page to link to the correct article title here - I guess that's the preferred way of doing things... -- Cid Highwind 21:41, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) * delete - There may also be other, similar redirects within M/A as well, might have to spot those at some point as well. --Alan del Beccio 22:53, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Delete. --From Andoria with Love 10:41, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Delete away.--Tim Thomason 08:33, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) Memory Beta ;Memory Beta : The assumption seems logical, but it is still an assumption. With no "original" information (not counting the fact that there are facilities with similar names) and probably no one ever linking to or searching for it, I simply don't see the sense of this. -- Cid Highwind 23:00, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) :I moved the reference to part of a non-canon article, Memory Beta was mentioned in "Memory Prime". deletion is likely for the redirect. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * Delete redirect. --From Andoria with Love 10:41, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Delete and maybe merge.--Tim Thomason 08:33, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) Stiles ;Stiles : This disambiguation page is unnecessary because there are currently only two pages that link to it, and only one person (Stiles (Captain)) with that exact name. I think this page should be deleted, and then Stiles (Captain) should be moved to Stiles, and then the redirect should be deleted. I realize that when people search for "Stiles" chances are they are looking for Andrew Stiles instead, but I feel that a disambig note at the top of the Stiles (Captain) page should suffice.--Tim Thomason 08:31, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Neutral. It doesn't seem completely necessary, but it also doesn't seem entirely useless either. Wait... did that make sense? --From Andoria with Love 10:41, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) **Well, the thing about a disambig is that it is needed when two or more articles share the same name and it's assumed that a casual fan could be looking for any/either of them. This case is an unnecessary disambig because there is really only one actual character with the name "Stiles" (the other character being named "Andrew Stiles"). I feel that a disambig note on top of the articles will make the disambig unnecessary (as the disambig information is spread on those two articles).--Tim Thomason 11:36, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Hmmm... okay, that works for me. Delete and post disambig notices on the top of the articles. --From Andoria with Love 11:39, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) *I agree, with only one "Stiles" we don't need a disambiguation page - should be enough. However, as no content is deleted, I don't think we need the complete deletion procedure and will just move the pages now. -- Cid Highwind 12:49, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) *I re-wrote the Stiles article, changing it's focus to a description of the extended Stiles family.Aurelius Kirk 14:03, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) **I already changed that again (sorry, hadn't seen this comment yet), trying to merge your recent additions with the former content while putting the focus back on the captain, because that Stiles was the most important one in the discussion. Also, this article already has the personnel categories which would otherwise have to be removed. Should we perhaps discuss this further on Talk:Stiles? -- Cid Highwind ***'oppose' -> I agree with discussing this on a talk page --i posted a question on Talk:Andrew Stiles some time ago -- because I'm not sure he is named Andrew Stiles. The disambiguation is because he should probably be listed under Stiles (Lieutenant) until someone can provide a satisfactory answer: did the first name "Andrew" appear in an episode script or dialogue? I'm not sure proof exists for this: and if he has no canon first name, the article Stiles should disambiguate between Stiles (Captain) and Stiles (Lieutenant). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk ****I'm sorry, I should have checked Andrew Stiles' talk page before posting this. I figured it was pretty well confirmed that his name was Andrew Stiles, and didn't know that it was an unsure subject. In which case, I withdraw my original implied vote for delete on the subject, even though it was already deleted once.--Tim Thomason 23:43, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) *Since we now have three pages, the disambiguation seems necessary. Striking my earlier vote, I now vote to keep. -- Cid Highwind 23:54, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) MA:DR & Memory Alpha:DR MA:DR ;MA:DR: The last discussion regarding this was moved to Memory_Alpha:Ten_Forward#Shortcut_links because we were still discussing the use of shortcut links in general. With that out of the way, we can now go back to discuss the deletion of this one. I'm not moving this discussion back here, because some opinions might have changed, or were based on the assumption that all shortcuts should be deleted. Please vote again. To clarify, this should be deleted, because the page it is supposed to link to, Memory Alpha:Duty Roster, was under discussion, moved to another title, and might or might not moved back to that title in the future. Meanwhile, we shouldn't have shortcuts for pages that do not exist. -- Cid Highwind 15:35, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. --From Andoria with Love 03:41, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) Memory Alpha:DR ;Memory Alpha:DR: As above. -- Cid Highwind 15:35, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. Weyoun 15:40, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. --From Andoria with Love 03:41, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) Cochrane delta ;Cochrane delta: Not canon. Might be from one of the novels, though, and as such could be trimmed down and added to the background section of that article. As a separate article, delete. Addition: It's Federation (novel), information was just added to that article. -- Cid Highwind 19:25, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Merge' histories and delete this. --From Andoria with Love 03:29, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'.Jaz 03:30, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' and Merge.--Tim Thomason 08:33, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) Hemocythemia ;Hemocythemia: Not cited, no pages link to it suggesting that it might be citable (aside from medical conditions, which could be completely random). --Alan del Beccio 19:41, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) :Keep, probably. Googling for that term +trek suggests that Samantha Wildmans child suffered from this disease, died and was replaced by a duplicate in VOY: "Deadlock". If someone can confirm this, definitely keep, but work on the page. -- Cid Highwind 20:00, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Keep'. It was mentioned in the Star Trek Encyclopedia as well. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 02:29, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. Google is not a valid resource, and the Encylopedia does occasionally speculate. If its not in the episode, it got to go.Jaz 03:27, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Comment': Before voting on this, somebody needs to look up the actual episode in question and check it out. Something tells me this does belong here, though it's been years since I've seen the episode. --From Andoria with Love 03:41, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Comment'. a search for the word and script didn't turn up any evidence, but it could be one of the many cases where going verbatim from scripts (the dialogue is often different from the script, the encyclopedia is valid, it has a strong tie as noted to Trek) so I say keep. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 03:55, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Comment'. Google is not a valid resource, correct. But the fact that a simple search results in a whole bunch of links all related somehow to Naomi Wildman and a specific episode should at least be reason enough to do some research (which I can't do, because I don't have access to that episode at the moment) instead of getting too "trigger-happy" and deleting something that might be a missing valid article. Vedek, did you search for variations of that word, perhaps "hemocythemic", or just "hemo"? -- Cid Highwind 11:46, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Keep'. A quick browse through the episode transcript of Deadlock found here, reveals that everything that is mentioned on the Hemocythemia page was in fact stated in the episode. I cross-checked the episode on DVD as well and the transcript is authentic. ----Jörg 12:14, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) Ranul Keru Ranul Keru, non-canon, enough said. Jaz 21:55, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Merge' appropriate content to Rogue and Star Trek: Titan, if possible. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 02:29, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Merge'. --From Andoria with Love 03:41, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) *Seems to have been handled as a page merge. See MA:TF (section "Misplaced merge suggestions") for a suggestion to avoid having these suggestions on the deletion page in the future. -- Cid Highwind 21:00, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC) Xon Xon. Okay, I can tell this ones gonna cause a stir. The fact is, in canon trek, Xon, never existed, if we keep the article than all other info in unproduced scripts and cut scenes are canon too. The info is important, and should be placed into the phase II page, but it can't exist on its own.Jaz 22:24, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Keep-- only on account of the fact that we allow many other useful cut script references (ex. the second USS Reliant, USS Hawk and much much more). At least in this case there is proof a character existed, and not just a mere line removed from the script. Must less the fact this page is over a year and a half old. --Alan del Beccio 00:09, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'KEEP'. The article is about a completely legitimate subject. Memory Alpha is supposed to be an encyclopedia to the Star Trek franchise, therefore all aspects must be covered. -- Krevaner 01:03, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) :*But in canon it appears that Xon never existed, and instead we have Sonak, the new science officer killed in a transporter accident. I'm not saying he shouldn't be mentioned, but if we want to keep him, the rest of our policy must change. He was not in any of the categories listed as acceptable sources at Memory Alpha:Canon Policy, and is therefor the equivilant of a non-canon character. Jaz 01:25, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Merge. I believe Jaz is right. This is not a cut reference from an otherwise valid resource, it's information from the never produced Phase II. Unless we change our Canon policy to include that, I suggest to merge that on a production POV article about Phase II, just like non-canon characters from novels are handled. -- Cid Highwind 01:33, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Redirect to Star Trek: Phase II and merge, similar to what was done for Nicole Janeway. I think the unique nature of Xon's character and the fact that it's so well known warrants at least that much. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 02:29, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) Keep, we have articles on actors even though most if not all of them are never brought up in the Canon. WE reference, non canon tech manuals, so why can't we reference the fact that they had written, and cast an actor/character that was not used. He is non canon, but it is a part of Star Trek History. --TOSrules 03:21, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) *You have admitted he's non-canon, and since he's clearly not a real person, he does not, by our own policy, deserve a page. If you have a problem with this deletion, your issue is with the policy, not this incident. Jaz 03:25, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) *Hmmm... I think it would be best to move the info from this article into Star Trek: Phase II, keeping Xon itself as a redirect to that page (or perhaps even to Sonak), as SmokeDetector47 recommended above. This character is no different that Nicole Janeway, and should be treated the same. --From Andoria with Love 03:41, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) *I like this character, so I'm not sure. I guess Merge and Redirect to Phase II seems appropriate, but not Sonak.--Tim Thomason 08:33, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Comment'. Jaz is right again. May I remind everyone that this page is not the place to discuss policy, just the place to decide if actions regarding a page are valid according to existing policy? And according to our , the issue is clear. -- Cid Highwind 11:38, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) Bio-genevesium ;Bio-genevesium : Not cited and does not link anywhere. Also, a Google search did not find a single reference to this term, so it looks as though it is an imaginary term. Either that, or misspelled. --From Andoria with Love 17:21, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. -- Cid Highwind 21:18, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC) Vaadwaur history The pna discussion on the talk page seems to point toward a consensus that this one should be merged with the Vaadwaur species page so I thought I'd just get the process going. Logan 5 03:29, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC) *Both pages seem to be short enough to be merged instead of kept separate. I agree with merge/keep redirect. I also just created a new template to suggest such merges in the future, see and comment on MA:TF ("Misplaced merge suggestions"). -- Cid Highwind 21:13, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC) Contract Not sure about this entry. Really only has relevance in the Ferengi sense of the term but not much beyond that. Originally I thought I'd just clean it up, but frankly I'm not sure it's needed and I get the feeling, given the language, that the anon. users who created it weren't too serious to begin with. Logan 5 03:47, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)